Tag Archives: political system

Many of the mass media operatives and anti-American propagandists are once more desperately trying to bring Ron Paul back into the public debate and the media eye, somehow by alleging him as the new liberal “revolution” and anti-establishment candidate.

Passing on the fact that he is as anti-establishment as Arthur Ruppin was anti-Zionist and that most of his proposals are just rehearsals of previous internationalist and globalist political beliefs coupled with even more ethnomasochism, there is at least some truth to the media propaganda for once : Ron Paul is liberal. Liberal as in real liberal, not left-wing progressive. I intentionally avoid the label classical liberal.

Now if the media for once got their facts right, they are of course completely wrong in their analysis of these facts.

Many representatives will say that Ron Paul popularized, or re-popularized, liberalism. Some will even go so far as to say that Ron Paul is popular because of his liberal views.

But I assure you, if Ron Paul manages to combine popularity in the globalist media and liberal views, there is no causality involved at all. I would go so far as to say that not only Ron Paul is not popular because of his liberal views, but rather popular despite his liberal inclinations.

Notice that those that support Ron Paul, that is to say every internationalist media to an extend, doesn’t do so because Ron Paul opposes public spending, governmental regulations and Keynesianism, but rather because he is seen as an objector to what they call “American imperialism”.

Ron Paul isn’t that much more economically liberal than Newt Gingrich or Ronald Reagan, but the reason he gets support from the anti-American media is simply because he has a very globalist and demagogic message : peace.

Furthermore, Ron Paul also has support for opposing the government, which is the new scapegoat of 2012. And by opposing I mean deluding himself and blaming everything on. But what he forgets is that liberalism isn’t particularly anti-government at all.

Liberalism doesn’t have to mean a limited government, rather an efficient government.

The media are dead wrong to believe that liberalism has rejuvenated. Liberalism means individual responsibility, and ethnomasochism is far from individual responsibility.
The more the American people strive for globalism, foreignism and anti-Americanism, the more they will be drawn to socialism regardless. If liberalism is a little more popular now than it used to be, it’s simply the result of the Bush/Obama fiasco.

But don’t delude yourself into believing that liberalism is back on the political agenda and that the United States citizens will suddenly change their political and ideological views. Nowadays Americans, if we can even call them Americans, are far too attached to the socialist values that gave birth to internationalism and ethnomasochism in the first place : collective irresponsibility, group think and sheep mentality.

Surely many Americans are the biggest sheep in the world, and even more surely these same Americans will pay the price for this naivety in a very near future. Unfortunately, many not-so-sheep Americans will also have to pay the same price. That’s the beauty of collective irresponsibility.

I don’t know if you watched Ron Paul’s speech to a Town Hall meeting in Maryland, but it’s very revealing concerning his ambitions as a president.
A very interesting segment was when he said that we should all unite under our love for liberty and forget communities and differences. Replace liberty with equality and you have the exact same speech as Lenin. Anationalism in other words.

It’s funny how the globalists are always demanding for sacrifices in the name of a “greater good”, such as globalism, freedom. But what they won’t tell you and Americans won’t seem to realize is that it’s always the same that are performing these sacrifices (Americans) and the same that are on the receiving end (the foreign).

You don’t see such speeches in the European elections for example. No candidate would dare put a “greater good” above national interests. But Americans don’t seem to notice anything happening outside their borders.

You may see a lot of foreign support for Ron Paul as I previously evoked on this blog, but does that mean they like his ideas ? Or just that they want him in the White House ?

Notice that far from being ashamed of this foreign support, Ron Paul actually praises it on any possible occasion. It seems he accords even more value to foreign support than national support, which says long about a candidate to the United States presidency.

If Americans weren’t so much following the sheep mentality and mindless group-think they’d start to look a little closer at the foreign governments, and start to notice some incoherence.

For example, just look at how much support Ron Paul received from France or Russia. But who are their presidents ? Libertarians or nationalists ? This applies for any other country in the world, India, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic.

Look at the polls, look at their candidates, look at their senates, look at their propositions, look at their political programs ? Do they even have a libertarian candidate ? In most cases no, and if they do it’s far from being the globalist ethnomasochist hippie-fest that Ron Paul promulgates, and a lot closer to nationalism coupled with classical liberalism.

If Americans weren’t such sheep, they’d notice that far from wanting more libertarianism for their countries, they just want Ron Paul elected as president of the United States.

But unfortunately, Americans are sheep and will suffer the consequences. Too bad. But kinda funny at the same time.
Be prepared for more OWS crap in the near future, and don’t forget the popcorn (one of the rare vestige of American gastronomy that has survived decades of global imperialism and ethnomasochism).

If you are trying to win an argument over politics in the United States, there are some advanced cheats you can easily use to discredit your opponent, such as calling him a fascist, a racist, a nationalist… or a pro-corporation. These cheats are so powerful that you can win any argument simply by using them, even against someone much more competent than you on political or economical subjects.

You see, in the middle of an unprecedented economic crisis, the massive trade deficit and public debt we face, and the continuously growing influence of the foreign and foreign interests in our own country, Americans are worried about corporations.
And by corporations, Americans don’t mean corporate lobbies, they just mean American corporations. Once again, demagogy became a convenient excuse for anti-Americanism.

That just proves to show that once more Americans are blaming scapegoats, and not any scapegoat because they are actually blaming the wealth creators and the only ones that draw money into the United States, as opposed to the very common American Business Model.

Many “Americans”, loyal adepts following the sheep mentality, have expressed their desire for corporations to have less voice in the White House. They even came up with a slogan, “Corporations are not people”. Some would argue that by doing that they are shooting themselves in the foot, since most of them are also supporters of famous anti-American lobbies, such as ecology, anti-racism or even globalism. Others would also argue that the priority would be to lessen the voice of the foreign out of our politics.

Some real questions arise from these clear demonstrations of demagogy and sheep mentality, including the following, should the corporations have a bigger or small voice inside the White House ?

First of all, supposing that we should lessen the voice of corporations/companies means that they already have some, which is clearly not the case. Have you ever heard of an act favoring American companies ? Sure the international socialist media might talk to you about SOPA/PIPA, but was it really a corporate issue ? Similar laws are effective in many other countries in the world (only more nationalist version), and have proven that such laws are more of a political issue.
Furthermore SOPA/PIPA don’t really favor American corporations since most musical labels and films distributors are foreign, and these laws don’t make distinction between the origin of any intellectual propriety (unlike their European equivalents for example).

Secondly, when is the last time Obama’s administration addressed an issue that American companies/entrepreneurs have to face ? Like social dumping, foreign protectionism, foreign nationalism, foreign economical imperialism, American ethnomasochism ? Even more consternating, when was the last time any president or political candidate had an open discussion with entrepreneurs, companies or any other wealth creator ? Despite them being very good at showing appalling doses of demagogy on public media, those facts alone exhibit their clear aversion for those that are actually bringing money in the USA.

Lastly, the anti-American media is very good at pointing out the supposed size of the corporations in our politics, but they forget that the entire American system is based on feeding off of these big corporations. The middle-class doesn’t export, neither do they bring money in the USA. The companies are the most taxed entities in this country, depriving them from political power would be not only stupid but also very hypocritical. The recent American government decisions were never pro-business, and much less pro-American business.

I honestly believe that more corporation voicing their views in the political debate can only be more beneficial.

Not only is it only fare that the biggest contributors to our economy have a bigger voice, but especially since they are close to being the only ones that actually know shit about the business world and political economy.

If I wanted to see unbiased global political economics brought to the political table and had a choice between :

Unemployed hippies calling themselves the 99% and whining about the economic crisis.

Foreign news reporters writing about how globalism is good and how nationalism is bad, yet promoting the opposite in their respective countries.

…and actual companies that actually have real experience of how global economics work, I’d much rather have them inside a political debate.

In their political decisions American have for too long relied on principles, dreams, opinions, morals, ideas rather than on facts and on what actually works.

Ultimately, this is why the politicians that make the least amount of promises are always sanctioned. That tells you a lot about the voters, who at each election, will look for the person that says the most… without realizing that if he says so much, it’s because he doesn’t know shit.

Opinions and principles of our politicians are worthless, it’s time American stop the demagogy perpetuated by the media about what’s right to do, what’s ethical, what’s tolerant… and start looking at what works.

American multinational corporations, unlike most Americans, actually know what works and they also know what’s going on outside our borders. They actually know what discriminative laws they have to face when trying to implant themselves in this or that country, and also know that their foreign competitors don’t have to face these laws when implanting themselves in the USA.

I’d rather have them bring that to the political table then hear Santorum whining about Jesus or Ron Paul about torture.

The only way of seeing what works is to have actual global business experience. And actual global business experience comes from… reality, once again.

Not from Joe K. plumber since 1978 who thinks nationalism is bad because it’s “racist” and “intolerant”, not from Frank B. unemployed since always who thinks welfare is good because Obama said so, and certainly not from Jennifer A. writer for the Huffington Post who shares her political analysis every week yet learned about economy reading fucking cosmo.

Earlier this week I was seriously considering voting Ron Paul for the next presidential elections, as I stated in my last post The 2012 Demagogic Elections.

It made sense to me to vote for him because since every candidate had the same political and economical views, I might as well vote for the one that was least likely to break my balls with government intervention.

Yet after thoughtful consideration, I won’t vote for him or any other candidate this year.

Even to prevent Obama from gaining a second term mandate, I really don’t see myself signing an adhesion charter to his values.
Maybe if there was another Tea Party candidate presenting himself could I, at a pinch, hold out my ballot, but for me Ron Paul is one of the most despicable politicians.

As much as I hate Santorum and Obama for their efforts to destroy what is left of American culture, at least they have a bit of integrity and at least will they go against the public opinion once in a while.
But Ron Paul no, never will he challenge the global opinion, nether will he risk his popularity, acquired less by his political skills than his inherent tendency to voice political correctness.

Always siding with the majority, with the public opinion, with the political correctness : the 99%, the foreign, the anti-SOPA, the anti-NDAA, the anti-racists…

How can a candidate call for change when he refuses to see the real problems ? Worse than the blind are those who refuse to see, remember.

How can he challenge the system when he is always looking for scapegoats for every American issue ? Note that he will always attack very little consortia, to be sure that they won’t defend themselves.
Example : the banksters (who do you know that’s a “bankster” ?), the corporations, Wall Street (when was the last time you saw a Wall Street representative on the media ?).

But he would never, for example, assault the ecological lobby which is clearly anti-American, yet receives wide support in our own nation.

Some would argue that a flu is far less inconvenient than plague or cholera, but don’t forget that in modern days a flu kills more than plague or cholera combined.

And honestly, I couldn’t vote for a candidate that :

Voiced his support to anti-American lobbies and political organizations in 2008 (Green Party)

Bases his economical program on his ideals and opinions, rather than on factual evidence and reality

Denied that Iraq’s regime was similar to the third Reich on his debate against McCain. He clearly never read the Iraqi Civil and Criminal codes, which share many similarities with the ones under the Hitler’s regime. But does he only read Arabic ? Or German ?

Uses obscurantism and massive oversimplifications when talking about the Fed, and economics in general.

Never backs up his propositions with data, and trait he shares with the liberals.

Ron Paul is either hypocritical or ignorant, and in both cases those are not qualities I would like to see in a president of the United States.

About every four years a very particular and intriguing event is held somewhere in the United States of America Demagogy, and many signs show that this year’s event will be at least as lame as every other year.

Similarly to how other countries elect representatives to govern them and act in their best interest, we in the United States of America Demagogy elect notorious globalists and demagogues to govern us, and act against our national interest.

You would be thinking that with the economic crisis that touches our country more then any other, with nationalist movements rising more than ever in Europe and every other country, with the disastrous results of half a decade of ethnomasochism and globalism, Americans would start to wake up and demand that their government start working in the national interest.

But apparently Americans are more concerned with gay rights, birth control pills and the legalization of marijuana.

These same Americans don’t seem to notice that they will soon experience a very painful blowback to use Ron Paul’s favorite term, once the Fed stops printing money. The errors of half a decade of ethnomasochistic governing and foreignism won’t be repaired with yet another bailout, and the consequences that Americans are starting to see are only the tip of the iceberg.

It was pretty funny last year to watch the Occupy Wall Street movement, yet another blatant excuse for anti-Americanism promoted by our ethnomasochistic media, because of the wide ignorance of the protesters.

Not only were they proposing even more international socialism to resolve problems created by international socialism, but really if they think our economic situation now is difficult, wait and see how it will be when the Europeans or the Russian take us over.

And no, there won’t be a massive bailout to magically solve our decades of trade-deficit, debt accumulation and other consequences to our anti-American globalist actions.

Even Ron Paul’s policies to cut government spending are widely insufficient at best, on the wrong track at worst.
As much as we need government spending’s limited, that alone won’t solve most of our problems. Germany, China, India, Denmark, France, Sweden Russia and most of the globe all have economies that are a lot more government depended than us (59% of GDP for Denmark, 56% for France) and their economy is in better shape than ours.

In 2008, we had to choose between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, but trust me in 2012 we will have both.

As long as American interests aren’t the top and only priority of the voters, you might as well keep Obama and his current administration because no candidate is projecting much change in our ideology.

And apparently, seeing the possible candidates for the 2012 elections, the public opinion hasn’t evolved one bit despite the economic crisis of 2012.

As for me, once again I will not vote for anyone.

I was considered voting Ron Paul earlier this year but seriously it’s not even worth the effort, and I wouldn’t want to encourage the globalist system with my vote.

As long as we won’t have American elections, based on American interests and not demagogy, voting will be as useless here as in central Africa.

When we refer to nationalism in the United States of America, there is always a considerable amount of confusion about the meanings of this term.

Does it designate patriotism ? A more advanced form of patriotism ?
Is it left-wing or right-wing ? Is it conservative, liberal or socialist ?

Is nationalism like communism ? Is it authoritarian ? Totalitarian ? An autocracy ?
Does it consider the state or government above all individuals ? Is it collectivist ?
Is it white-pride groups that openly promote their love for the German (Nazi) flag ?
Is a national socialism an oxymoron ? How about national libertarianism or national anarchism ?

Of course and as always, the mass media backed by the global agenda is to blame for this intentional confusion around the real meaning of nationalism.

In no other country in the world are nationalism and patriotism so stigmatized as in the USA, and in no other country in the world are these terms intentionally stripped of their meanings by ethno-masochistic propaganda and mass media obscurantism either.

Nationalism as an ideology, not a political regime

Nationalism is not a political movement. Nationalism is not a political regime. Nationalism is not a political system. Nationalism is not a political doctrine.

Despite these facts, many still misinterpret nationalism as an opposition to “classical” liberalism or socialism.
Nationalism, and to a lesser extend fascism, are ideologies. The fact that they are exclusively associated with the political scene is a common misconception.

Socialism, liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism, populism, authoritarianism, and the list goes on… are all political systems, as they can be adopted and adjusted to fit any particular view.
This explains how you can have national socialism (Nazi Germany, Modern Germany and most European countries), international socialism (Obama), even more ethnomasochistic international socialism (California), religion oriented socialism (Pakistan, Iran and Islamic countries in general), ecological oriented socialism (Green Party), racial separation oriented socialism (American Nazi Party), faggotry oriented socialism (Occupy Wall Street). The same goes for every other political movement quoted above.

A political system is define by the way the government, and the other branches of power (executive, legislative, judicial), organizes society.
No room for an ideology here. Welfare and wealth redistribution will have different meanings and justifications whether done in the USA or in Nazi Germany.

Understanding this issue grants one to comprehend better the incoherence of considering candidates such as Ron Paul or previously Barack Obama like “saviors”.
In both cases, the mass media has attempted to build these candidates into “providential men”. The pattern is very simple :
1. There is a problem (alternatively and more realistically, there are many problems).
2. These people have the ultimate magic-pill solution that will magically fix everything. The change !
3. Of course the big evil republicans/racists/government/bankers/traders/homosexuals/conservatives/power-rangers/corporations (insert the traditional scapegoat for every problem) are against them.

Disregarding the factual evidence that these candidates are proposing the exacts same solutions to the exact same problems we encountered for now more than fifty years, the mass media will try to build them as anti-system, or anti-establishment candidates.

I shouldn’t say the exact same solutions, because politically these candidates differ greatly especially when comparing Ron Paul to Barack Obama, but the exact same ideology : ethnomasochism and cult of the foreign.

Whether it’s Obama mourning about Guantanamo or the behavior of American soldiers overseas, or Ron Paul whining about American “bullying” the “rest of the world”, disregarding the evidence of European colonization of our culture and European imperialism, they both follow the same traced route of global solutions to typically American issues.

American problems are ideological not political

The major problems with the United States of America aren’t political, they are ideological. (well arguably Obama added some political problems over the top, but you get the idea)

These are the same ideological issue we faced now for over fifty years, and even more than that !

From the very first day Americans started neglecting their own culture for the foreign, from the very first day they started trading American interests for the global agenda, from the very first day Americans became ashamed of anything relating to American culture, we were bound to face the issues we face today (trade deficit, no national identity, communitarianism, anti-Americanism, de-localizations).

We have now been facing the same problems for fifty years, and we are still trying to provide the same solutions. As Einstein stated :

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

And I’m not criticizing any particular political system, although I am doubtful of the effectiveness of Obama’s economic policies, I’m simply stating that we can’t fix ideological issues with political solutions.

Our trade deficit is growing each year, the foreign interests are the top concerns of our citizens, the unemployment rate is higher than ever, the foreign are colonizing more and more of our nation, our industry is facing massive de-localization, the share of American companies profiting from our daily consumptions are diminishing year by year, and so is the share of products made in the USA.

The media is ignoring most of the real issues, and while our enemies have for the past century gathered more and more around nationalism, we have gone in the opposite direction : ethnomasochism.

Ten years after the Holocaust and a nationalist party was already reformed in Germany, while in the USA there is no nationalism to be found. Neither in the government, nor in the opposition.

When will the Americans understand that switching from ethnomasochistic socialism to ethnomasochistic libertarianism won’t solve our majors problems, the same way switching from a red square to a green square won’t make it fit in the circle hole.

Nationalism must become once again an ideology, not a political opinion, and be at the center of our decision making, whether from the government or the citizens.